Participation Medals Are Not Wanted in the NFBC
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:20 pm
The text read..."I'll take 200 K's and 15 Wins every year. Vroom Vroom."
The texter was talking about James Paxton.
There are many opinions on Paxton. They range from 'Ace' to 'Injury Riddled'
In a way, both accounts are correct.
Paxton is being selected in the sixth or seventh rounds in most NFBC early drafts. He is drafted behind Trevor Bauer and Corey Kluber.
Ahead of Jose Berrios and Sonny Gray.
This is the area where most drafters are selecting one of these pitchers to be their 'secondary Ace'. A pitcher to backup their premier pitcher.
Each of these pitchers have what NFBC drafters require. Strike outs.
Each are close to the k/inn that is now expected by pitchers drafted in single digit rounds.
A strike out an inning used to be an achievement. I remember looking at the stat with reverence when beginning NFBC drafting.
Now, with the rise of hitters 'selling out' and not caring about the outcome of a strike out, they are a dime a dozen.
Strike outs have risen every year since the NFBC started. It is the only trend that has had a continuous rise since then.
In effect, strike outs have become 'cheap'.
200 strike out pitchers like Matt Boyd and Robbie Ray can be had in the 10th round and beyond in most drafts.
Boyd and Ray did not make 200 strike outs or a k/inn by the skin of their teeth.
Each had over 50 strike outs beyond their innings pitched.
Still, we revere the strike out.
Each pitcher selected highly,even Closers, must have the ratio we crave.
But, let's get back to James Paxton.
Does he really belong as one of these pitchers?
Sure, he checks the box of having a k an inning.
But, does he do it in a meaningful (for us) way?
As I told the texter, Paxton has reached 200 strike outs ONCE.
He has reached 15 Wins ONCE.
And not in the same year.
Paxton, in my mind, is still riding the hype that has kept him a high rounded pitcher in NFBC drafts during his career.
So, I tried an experiment.
I put Paxton beside a pitcher who has never yielded a strike out an inning.
A pitcher that has never been taken highly in NFBC drafts because of that missing skill.
A pitcher who pitches TO contact, not avoiding it.
Paxton's polar opposite.
Kyle Hendricks.
Hendricks is boring. Damn boring.
He is the Mutt to Paxton's Jeff.
NFBC drafters are not partial to boring. They want exciting.
Heck, Ronald Acuna is the dominant number one pick in drafts.
Exciting to Mike Trout's boring accumulation of yearly stats.
We like exciting, dominant players.
Kyle Hendricks is not exciting or dominant.
His number one skill is participation.
And Hell, any player can do that!
Hendricks almost continuous participation has netted him over 30 starts, four of his last five seasons.
Paxton has NEVER started 30 games. Never.
He did get to 29 last year. His highest ever. Coincidentally, he did not reach 200 strike outs.
Part of the reason is his 150 innings pitched. That's right. Paxton averaged just a fraction over five innings per start.
Add the five innings a start to Paxton's injury history and excitement should be replaced by red flags.
During the last five years, Hendricks keeps 'participating'.
His 818 strike outs accumulated through that participation even tops Paxton's 803.
He does this by topping Paaxton's innings, 966-733
During those five years, Paxton has lost a season of starts to Hendricks, 164-131.
Hendricks truly is, the turtle to Paxton's rabbit.
Or is he?
We think that if only Paxton were not injured, he would be the far superior pitcher.
But through those 200+ innings Hendricks has started over Paxton, Hendricks beats Paxton in other areas.
Hendricks lifetime WHIP is 1.11......Paxton's 1.21
Hendricks lifetime ERA is 3.14.......Paxton's 3.50
Hendricks lifetime Wins, 63..........Paxton 56
Hendricks is a year younger and has one less year of service than Paxton. I could have sworn the opposite would be true.
I believe it is because the sheen lasts longer on exciting over dull objects.
I don't expect this piece to have an effect on either Paxton or Hendricks draft spots.
Ultimately, we don't draft players exclusively for their pasts.
We try to project the future.
Although the future of both Paxton and Hendricks looks bright, it'll be Paxton who NFBC drafters will be coveting.
It's just the way we are.
We are mostly men.
Men are drawn to bright objects.
And we scoff at the thought of participation medals.
The texter was talking about James Paxton.
There are many opinions on Paxton. They range from 'Ace' to 'Injury Riddled'
In a way, both accounts are correct.
Paxton is being selected in the sixth or seventh rounds in most NFBC early drafts. He is drafted behind Trevor Bauer and Corey Kluber.
Ahead of Jose Berrios and Sonny Gray.
This is the area where most drafters are selecting one of these pitchers to be their 'secondary Ace'. A pitcher to backup their premier pitcher.
Each of these pitchers have what NFBC drafters require. Strike outs.
Each are close to the k/inn that is now expected by pitchers drafted in single digit rounds.
A strike out an inning used to be an achievement. I remember looking at the stat with reverence when beginning NFBC drafting.
Now, with the rise of hitters 'selling out' and not caring about the outcome of a strike out, they are a dime a dozen.
Strike outs have risen every year since the NFBC started. It is the only trend that has had a continuous rise since then.
In effect, strike outs have become 'cheap'.
200 strike out pitchers like Matt Boyd and Robbie Ray can be had in the 10th round and beyond in most drafts.
Boyd and Ray did not make 200 strike outs or a k/inn by the skin of their teeth.
Each had over 50 strike outs beyond their innings pitched.
Still, we revere the strike out.
Each pitcher selected highly,even Closers, must have the ratio we crave.
But, let's get back to James Paxton.
Does he really belong as one of these pitchers?
Sure, he checks the box of having a k an inning.
But, does he do it in a meaningful (for us) way?
As I told the texter, Paxton has reached 200 strike outs ONCE.
He has reached 15 Wins ONCE.
And not in the same year.
Paxton, in my mind, is still riding the hype that has kept him a high rounded pitcher in NFBC drafts during his career.
So, I tried an experiment.
I put Paxton beside a pitcher who has never yielded a strike out an inning.
A pitcher that has never been taken highly in NFBC drafts because of that missing skill.
A pitcher who pitches TO contact, not avoiding it.
Paxton's polar opposite.
Kyle Hendricks.
Hendricks is boring. Damn boring.
He is the Mutt to Paxton's Jeff.
NFBC drafters are not partial to boring. They want exciting.
Heck, Ronald Acuna is the dominant number one pick in drafts.
Exciting to Mike Trout's boring accumulation of yearly stats.
We like exciting, dominant players.
Kyle Hendricks is not exciting or dominant.
His number one skill is participation.
And Hell, any player can do that!
Hendricks almost continuous participation has netted him over 30 starts, four of his last five seasons.
Paxton has NEVER started 30 games. Never.
He did get to 29 last year. His highest ever. Coincidentally, he did not reach 200 strike outs.
Part of the reason is his 150 innings pitched. That's right. Paxton averaged just a fraction over five innings per start.
Add the five innings a start to Paxton's injury history and excitement should be replaced by red flags.
During the last five years, Hendricks keeps 'participating'.
His 818 strike outs accumulated through that participation even tops Paxton's 803.
He does this by topping Paaxton's innings, 966-733
During those five years, Paxton has lost a season of starts to Hendricks, 164-131.
Hendricks truly is, the turtle to Paxton's rabbit.
Or is he?
We think that if only Paxton were not injured, he would be the far superior pitcher.
But through those 200+ innings Hendricks has started over Paxton, Hendricks beats Paxton in other areas.
Hendricks lifetime WHIP is 1.11......Paxton's 1.21
Hendricks lifetime ERA is 3.14.......Paxton's 3.50
Hendricks lifetime Wins, 63..........Paxton 56
Hendricks is a year younger and has one less year of service than Paxton. I could have sworn the opposite would be true.
I believe it is because the sheen lasts longer on exciting over dull objects.
I don't expect this piece to have an effect on either Paxton or Hendricks draft spots.
Ultimately, we don't draft players exclusively for their pasts.
We try to project the future.
Although the future of both Paxton and Hendricks looks bright, it'll be Paxton who NFBC drafters will be coveting.
It's just the way we are.
We are mostly men.
Men are drawn to bright objects.
And we scoff at the thought of participation medals.